Random11

I rode my first century today--104 miles. I read Tomm Williams' thread on his century and I took the easy way out. Flat multi-use path, temperature in the 70s, and did four out-and-backs to total up that distance. That allowed me to stop by my car four times to replenish supplies. But, I went over 100 miles, which was my goal. I've been riding a bit less than three years, but ride almost every day (15-20 miles).. I'm 70 years old, so it seems like if I want to do a century, now's the time.

shelbyfv

Pretty sure that counts, good job!

OldTryGuy

>>>> Miles pedaled are still miles pedaled whether seated or standing in the hills or over flat terrain. My 70th was in July and I rode a "2fer + 1"

Cyclist0100

Awesome! Sounds like this might the first of many centuries to come.

pdlamb

Congratulations! and it's probably easier now than waiting 30 years to ride your age.

reverborama

That's a good way to do it!

Tomm Willians

Congratulations! It feels good doesn’t it!!!!

Iride01 

Yes now is the time. But it's not a one time thing.

Do it again.............

Random11

Thanks for all the positive comments. It wasn't that difficult to do the Century, but I have no plans to do it again. Not to say I won't, but it was something on my "bucket list" as a new rider--ride 100 miles--and now I've done it.

One thing I'll observe: it didn't take too much out of me, and this morning (day after the century) I rode a more typical 15 miles and am feeling no after-effects of the long ride. When I was running, a "bucket list" item was doing a Marathon. I did five of them (the most recent was 30 years ago), and afterwards it took two weeks for me to recover. My Marathon times weren't really fast (all under four hours; fastest was 3:24). Elsewhere on the Forums there's a thread on whether cycling is good exercise, and one thing I can say with certainty is that it is easier to cycle 100 miles than it is to run 26.

davester

I'd encourage you to keep riding centuries but to mix it up. Sounds like this first century was simply a "see if I could do it" task. Now that's done, I suggest that you do what I do and look for centuries (or longer) that take you over scenic territory that you haven't seen before from a bike or include significant challenges. Once you get a few centuries under your belt the difficulty wanes and you will start looking forward to new adventures. The nice thing about riding 100 or miles at a go is that it allows you to really get to know a wide area and visit some areas that are off the beaten track. Also, many of those areas are much more interesting when viewed from a bike rather than from a car.

Random11

Exactly right, Dave. My longest ride up to then was 62 miles (metric century). Your advice is good, and I probably should think of it as more of an adventure than a challenge.

reverborama

BwaHAHAhawhahah! Yeah, I think most of us have said that.

jppe

Outstanding! I’d get too bored doing the same route repeatedly. Well done!

Random11

I know some people feel that way. I do the same ride just about every day, 15-20 miles, leaving from my house and through nearby residential neighborhoods. I'm riding for the exercise and don't find it boring. The reason I do that is because I can leave from my house and don't have to drive my bike anywhere to ride it. The Century was an unusual ride for me. Maybe once or twice a month I'll drive my bike somewhere to ride.

gear64

Nice job! I've always wondered about the century/marathon thing. Wouldn't you need to have comparable times to have comparable effort comparison? For instance it would take me 10 hours, maybe a little less to ride a century. Many years ago I did an MS 150. Averaged maybe 13 on a pretty hilly route (very hilly compared to what I rode everyday), after training longer distances. My rear was still pretty dang sore getting on the next day. Now I ride more consistently but only 15-20 miles a ride, maybe a 30 once in awhile. I don't see doing 100 faster then 10-12 miles an hour. To me that would equate to walking a marathon. That seems like a pretty reasonable comparison to me, but I've never done one and likely never will. Running's not my thing, or even wanting to walk that far.

gear64

I'm fan of riding from my driveway as well. I can't remember the last time I've thrown the bike on the car if I wasn't going somewhere else already like visiting one of the kids out of town. It's hard enough to make time for the riding itself, much less driving back and forth somewhere. While many of my rides use the same segments over and over, particularly the initial/final legs; the radius of ridable streets and MUPs is large enough for a fair amount of variety. I like watching how neighborhoods evolve over time.

Random11

Perhaps an interesting comparison is the Tour de France, where cyclists cover approximately 21 centuries in a month. Marthoners can't run 21 marathons in a month. One reason might be that you don't have that pounding of your joints on a bike, but another might be that it's easier to do a century on a bike than run a marathon.

Iride01 

That is why I cycle. I've never been a runner. Too much work for the short distance a person can run. Cycling you can go on and on and on.

Why do you keep bringing this up? Does someone else need to ask how many times you can bench press 500 pounds and tell us how much harder than cycling it is?

takenreasy

As a long time ex-commuter I feel the same way. I still ride a lot but don't need, want, to load my bike on a car to go riding. It's probably the utilitarian bicyclist in me.

Random11

Seems like an interesting question (running vs. cycling), and related to a thread on another one of the forums about whether cycling is good exercise. As to my bench pressing, I have skinny cyclist arms that are barely strong enough to carry groceries from my car to my house. I'm fairly sure I could bench press 5 pounds if I was well-rested, but don't anticipate working my way up to 500.

Iride01 

Well I suppose it is an interesting question. It is just that I didn't see it posed as a question. Seemed to be more of "I run therefore I'm better". Don't take offense, think of this as conversation at the tavern with friends. This definitely isn't Friend or Foe type stuff. And I'd hate it if all my friends were of the same opinion as me because there'd be nothing for us to talk about.

Running vs cycling arguments usually get presented in effort over distance. But IMO, most people going out to run or cycle are going to go out for the limited amount of time they have to spare for that. So an hour of running might get you what? 8 miles at best? So for a 172 lb person, that comes to 967 Calories expended. For an hour ride I can sometimes average 18 mph. And that works out to 983 Calories expended.

https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-running/

https://caloriesburnedhq.com/calories-burned-biking/

And using your marathon time of 3hr 40min, then if I could run that, and I couldn't, then the Calorie calculator comes up with 3175 Calories for my 172 lb self to run 25.2 miles in 3hrs 24min. One of the most recent rides I have close to that time is a 58.9 mile ride last year. The calculator for it comes up with 3277 Calories burned.

So which is harder? Just too many personal preference things involved IMO than actual difficulty. And I think that really if effort is to be compared, you'd have to consider over time instead of distance to get a truer picture.

Random11

I gave you the same response I would have given if we were having a conversation in a tavern. I think about this because I used to be a runner but had to give it up because of on-going knee problems, so I started cycling instead, a bit less than three years ago. I'm a newbie on the bike, but ran for more than 50 years before having to call it quits. I'm pretty sure running is "harder" but it may be that cycling burns as many (or more) calories. Regardless, I'm a cyclist now, not a runner... and I am enjoying the time I'm spending on my bike. I'm definitely riding more hours per week than I spent running.

Jumpski

There is no easy way out of a century. Congratulations, and be careful on the road.

Random11

Thanks! I'm relatively new to cycling (been riding less than three years), but the accounts I've read here on Bike Forums do make me a bit wary. Most of my riding is on the road.

big john

Lots of variables in cycling. I did a century with 12,000 feet of climbing in the first 75 miles. @210 pounds that was pretty tough. I've done a number of 10,000 foot centuries including one that finishes with a steep climb. I did a 9000+ foot century in the mountains with a cold, hard rain for 40+ miles. I did a charity century when the headwind was so strong people were walking their bikes on flat ground. I did an 85 mile ride on a loaded touring bike where we traveled through the mountains and finished with 40 miles of stiff headwind. That ride took 11 hours. I've lost 11 pounds of water weight on rides. I've ridden when it was so hot and dry I got a bloody nose.

I've also done easy, relatively flat centuries in nice weather where we just cruised along and finished fresh.